Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-22-Speech-3-191-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110622.16.3-191-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The six reports on economic governance amount to a complex package for the European Union, especially for the eurozone. Those who put the package together find it hard enough to explain and it is even harder for people on the outside to understand it. It is understandable that people are perplexed, both by the crisis that is unravelling before them, and by our unclear and timid reaction to it. This is why the responsibility lies with us to explain our voting choices to our constituents; to say whether we are for or against each and every one of these reports. Briefly, the package which the Commission presented us with was intended to cover the three phases of how one should react to the crisis. Primarily, this package focuses on crisis prevention, mitigation and solution. The Wortmann-Kool, Feio and Goulard report discuss the use of sanctions at length as the main tools required to prevent a country from reaching dangerous deficit and debt levels, and the scenarios that arise when these countries ignore the various warnings issued to them on their dire fiscal situation. Originally, the reports squabbled over the severity of the fines that should be imposed, although later on more moderate suggestions were accepted. The hardest and more creative way of mitigating the crisis, by avoiding macroeconomic imbalances through the use of scoreboards that determine the targets to be reached, was left to the Ferreira report. Despite technical restrictions and other pressures, this report managed at least to attain a minimum set of desired objectives. Anyone hoping to find a solution to the current crisis within this package will be doing so in vain. This package lacks well thought out, sensible ideas by European and foreign economists on how the affected countries can overcome this crisis. One report that made an effort to build a consensus on securities for the euro was side-lined at the last minute by the Council and has now simply been shelved by the Commission, accompanied by a promise to carry out further studies on the subject. We have nothing in hand that is concrete; we have merely ended up with a promise unto a promise. We must keep in mind that the whole point of this exercise was to help Europe get back to its feet, to pull it out of the mire and to ensure that it can move forward and become globally competitive. For this reason, we should not oppose the idea that eurozone countries need to reduce their excess fiscal burdens. We agree that nobody should compete while carrying around such a heavy burden. However, one cannot accept the imposition of a crash diet that would only serve to further sicken and weaken. Europe needs to build some economic muscle; it needs creative schemes in order to strengthen economic growth and create jobs. It is greatly disappointing that after all these months, not one of the intelligent proposals that were on the cards ended up in this package."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples